RE: Re: Microsoft XML

> From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Kurt Cagle
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 9:49 PM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re:  Re: Microsoft XML
>
>
> >I am glad that you pointed out that MSXML parser is a model of
> >conformance for XML 1.0 and XSLT 1.0.  The rest of the things you
> >mention are neither XML 1.0 nor XSLT 1.0, so are not exactly relevant to
> >the uninformed comments in the O'Reilly book.
>
> >I'm of course aware that there are plenty of other specs besides XML 1.0
> >and XSLT 1.0 that people complain about regarding Microsoft's support
> >(Kerberos would be another), and I am sure there are plenty of people on
> >other lists who would be happy to debate the merits and demerits of
> >Microsoft's support in these areas.
>
> Of course, just to skew the argument back the other way, I would
> also argue
> that Microsoft has long had a history of supporting (or more
> often promoting
> their own versions of) those standards that support its own
> products and not
> supporting standards that may provide competitive advantages to other
> companies, even if they facilitate a more uniform set of implementation
> protocols for the Internet at large. XLink has been a standard for a while
> ...

Sadfully true.

One example: while using "WebDAV" compliance as a marketing buzzword for
their Webstorage System (Sharepoint), it breaks *both* XML and WebDAV in
many ways, and in addition introduces propietary and non-documented
extensions (like new HTTP methods, proprietary properties in WebDAV's
namespace, ...). These problems have been reported in April, but obviously
Microsoft isn't willing to comment on these issues -- they prefer to break
interoperability with clients that stick to the standard (RFC2518).

Regards, Julian

(Sorry for getting a *bit* off-topic, but WebDAV uses XML as marshalling
format...)





 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list